Silence During This Lecture

1
Silence During This Lecture

• Turn off Your Mobile
• Take Notes
• If You Wish to Ask a Question Please Raise Your
  Hand

1
PRECIS NOTES WILL BE CHECKED At the start of the
Lecture
2
Criminal Law elements Preparing for Law A2 by
Dr Peter Jepson

• See Chapters 1 to 3 of Criminal Law for A2 by
  Jacqueline Martin (2006)

You should read and précis the textbook prior to
this presentation
2
3
If I crash my Smart Car, while in a rage, I could
face two consequences
I could face a civil claim in Tort from any
person whom I injure as a result of a negligent
act or omission
And, I could face criminal charges - instigated
by the Police and brought by the CPS - for
dangerous driving or some other motoring
offence.
3
4
Criminal Law Is Concerned With Offences Against
the STATE
In a criminal case the prosecution must prove
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT Woolmington v DPP
1935 that D is responsible for the criminal
action
4
5
This could result in a Magistrate or Jury mode of
Trial
Who decides guilt if the case is determined in a
Magistrates Court? Who decides guilt if the case
is determined in the Crown Court? Who passes
sentence?
5
6
Majority of Crimes Consist of Two Elements
The Actus Reus or guilty act
The Mens Rea - or guilty mind
6
7
The Actus Reus

• The physical element of a crime
• A wrongful or prohibited action or failure to act
  (omission).
• Common Law and ??????? Law crimes).
• In both cases the definitions will include a
  specific reference to the actus reus required for
  the offence

7
8
The Actus Reus

• This may also refer to the act and the
  consequences
• e.g. an assault or battery resulting in actual
  bodily harm (abh)
• In this example, the result should be considered
  as well as the act
• Also, the act MUST cause the result.

8
9
The Actus Reus

• To summarise some key principles In determining
  the actus reus you need to consider
• The voluntary act or omission
• Which causes
• The result and,
• (in some cases) the circumstances surrounding the
  event.

9
10
Conduct - Act or Omission

• Either a positive act or an omission could amount
  to the actus reus
• Thus, for the actus reus to be fulfilled

10
11
Conduct - Act or Omission

1. D needs to voluntarily commit a positive action
   which results in the prohibited consequences or
2. D fails to carry out an action which they are
   obliged to do resulting in the prohibited
   consequences.

11
12
A Failure to Act

• R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) starving a child
  to death.
• R v Pittwood (1902) contractual duty and
  omission to act.
• R v Miller (1983) D created a danger and then
  failed to remove the harm.
• R v Naughton (2001) a duty to act and a failure
  to do so.

12
Students to explain each of the above cases
13
Voluntary Act

• It is said that an act must be voluntary
• When it is an act or omission, Ds behaviour must
  be as a result of an action over which D has some
  control - as opposed to a reflex action with no
  control (e.g. stung by bees or sleepwalking).
• Defence of automatism cover this (done later in
  A2 proper).

13
14
Causation

• In simple terms this can be illustrated by D
  stabbing V who is placed on a life support
  machine. If Doctors conclude they might as well
  turn of the machine it is clear that D caused the
  death.
• However, if the cleaner accidentally unplugs the
  life support machine then the cleaner (and not D)
  could be liable.

14
15
When considering the issue of causation the
courts look for

• Causation in fact and
• Causation in law.

15
16
Causation in fact applying the but for test
Not governed by statute law common law only.

• R v Pagett (1993)
• R v White (1910)
• What if anything is a common theme in these
  two cases?

16
17
Causation in Law Common law only

• Relates to whether or not the consequence was
  caused by the accused or,
• Whether the accused made a significant
  contribution to it.

17
18
Causation in Law

• Example If D hits V on the head and fractures
  her skull and she dies. D has caused Vs death.
  
• If, on the other hand V had recovered leaves
  hospital and walks straight under a bus and dies
  D cannot be said to have killed V.

18
19
Causation in Law the chain of causation

• See facts of R v Smith (1959)
• Compare them to R v Blaue (1975) and R v
  Cheshire (1991) - did the intervening events
  break the chain of causation?
• Switching off a life support machine R v
  Malcharek (1981)

19
20
Mens rea guilty mind

• Two basic categories
• (1) intention.
• (2) recklessness.

20
21
Mens rea guilty mind

• Each particular offence has its own actus reus
  and mens rea in other words they vary from
  offence to offence.
• In statutory offences the mens rea is defined by
  terms such as knowingly, maliciously,
  intentionally, wilfully, recklessly etc.

21
22
Specific Intention

• For some offences it is necessary to have a
  specific intent
• Examples of Murder or causing GBH

22
23
Specific Intention

• In R v Mohan (1976) it was said that Specific
  Intention is a decision to bring about, as far
  as it lies within Ds power, no matter whether
  the accused desired the consequence of his act or
  not.
• This can probably best be illustrated by the case
  of R v Moloney 1985 intent to commit GBH or
  murder

23
24
Practical Task

• In class, turn to page 218 of AS Law (Charman,
  Vanstone and Sherratt) read sections 18 and 20
  of Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Which parts are the Actus Reus and which are Mens
  Rea?

24
Students should photocopy page 218 before the
Lecture.
25
Oblique Intent

• When a person desired the result of their actions
  they are said to have direct intent.
• Where a person does not intend the consequences
  of death but they happen can they be liable?
  Suppose the odds of death are remote see R v
  Hancock and Shankland 1986

25
26
Oblique Intent

• A recent House of Lords case has laid down
  guidelines in relation to oblique intent. See the
  case of R v Woollin 1998

Break into Law Firms and discuss What does
Diana Roe mean (at page 27) when she says that
Woollin has made the law more certain in some
ways - while it leaves issues unresolved? Also,
do the activity on page 27 of J Martin!
26
27
Recklessness

• Historically there have been two types of
  recklessness Caldwell (often termed objective)
  and Cunningham (often termed subjective).

27
28
Objective Recklessness

• Based on the case of MPC v Caldwell 1982 .
• the risk is so obvious that any reasonable
  person would have seen it.
• The case of Elliott v C (a minor) 1983 highlights
  a basic problem with this approach. What if D is
  unable to see the risk due to special
  characteristics?

28
29
What is the current law?

• What is the current law on recklessness? -
  research and then present to the entire class the
  case(s) which explain the current law on
  recklessness.

29
30
Restrictive use of Objective recklessness

• In 2003 the House of Lords (R v G and another)
  decided that only Cunningham Recklessness now
  applies.

Note The Law may now be clarified. However, for
examination purposes it is still likely to be an
issue for debate/exams
30
31
Transferred Malice

• Suppose I purposely throw this duster at X, and I
  miss him because he ducks (so he does not get
  hit), hitting Y instead.
• What offences if any have been committed?

31
32
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

• Unless it is a strict liability offence the actus
  reus and mens rea are both needed.
• But need they exist at the same time?
• Consider the case of Fagan v MPC (1969)

32